Mass shooting in my state

[Terramirabilis]

Another mass shooting in the US and this one is close to home. Local media are saying 13 students dead and 20+ injured. When are people going to see sense on gun control. I just don't understand this.

twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash

Of course defence of property is murder

I can't say I'd ever be prepared to shoot someone for trying to take my car etc.

What is so precious about your car that it's worth killing someone to keep it on your driveway? Do people not have insurance that would replace it?

Lives are so goddamn cheap in the US - that's the impression I come away with. And I lived there for 2.5 years!

"Of course defence of property is murder"

Not according to English law. A person "may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects". Obviously deciding to shoot someone because they are taking your property would be murder, but if you go in with the intention to use reasonable force to prevent it, and the person either ignores you and continues to steal, or resists, then they have escalated it and if you found yourself in a position where you could either kill them to stop them theiving, or allow them to take your property, you could kill them and have a defence in law for doing so.

"What is so precious about your car that it's worth killing someone to keep it on your driveway? Do people not have insurance that would replace it?"

Of course it's insured but that isn't the point, why would you want to live life as a perpetual victim, having to "allow" people to take what they like just because you can claim it back. That costs the insurance companies, who will then hike up my premiums, and it lets a thief go free to potentially do more damage. My property belongs to me, the thief has no right to try and take it whereas I have every right to try and stop it being taken. If a thief is confronted and then makes the decision to escalate by resisting or whatever, then it's their fault if the home owner is forced to kill them to protect property. Fortunately there is an easy way to nullify this threat to the safety of burglars, they can elect not to try and steal stuff that isn't theirs.

So basically a life can be calculated in terms of increased insurance premiums?

Nope. But if you try taking things that aren't yours, and you chose to escalate it when confronted, leaving the person no choice but to kill you, or lose their property, what do you expect? Some people feel that the burglars life takes precedence but I don't subscribe to that view.

I've never believed that it's the law abiding person confronting a criminal who escalates things. Surely the criminal is at fault for being in the wrong. Do we tell the police to just leave thieves take what they like and not escalate things by confronting them?

I'm sorry but that is some seriously fucked up thinking - the proper human response in that situation is to accept that it's not worth killing someone for and to get as much detail as possible so that you can pass it to the relevant authorities. It's not to decide that their life is worth less than your increased insurance premium.

With respect I disagree. Their life is worth less if they decide to try steal my property. But fortunately there is easy solution to this risk. It's called don't burgle stuff that isn't yours :P

Their life is worth less if they decide to try steal my property.

No it is not. Not legally or morally. Jeez.

Luckily in this country we have something called a justice system - it's their job to decide what is the punishment that fits the crime - so in language that might make sense to you "How much they have lessened their life worth by stealing your car?".

No judge, in this country or the US, would sentence someone to death PURELY for the crime of car theft. So no house-owner should be setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye.

"No it is not. Not legally or morally. Jeez."

Whether it's morally acceptable is a matter of opinion but the legal facts can't really be disputed. You are entitled to protect your property up to and including taking the life of a thief if it's reasonable force. So say that you confronted a thief and he resisted/escalated the situation and made it so that you could either kill him to protect your property or let him steal your property, you could kill that thief and have a defence in law for doing so.

"No judge, in this country or the US, would sentence someone to death PURELY for the crime of car theft. So no house-owner should be setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye."

Quite right, no one should be setting themselves up as an arbiter of life and death. There is a difference between doing that, and killing someone in self defence or defence of property.

It's like if someone attacks you and you kill them in self defence, you aren't killing them as a punishment for their crime, you're doing it to protect yourself. The same applies to property.

'Reasonable force' is the key term here. You're not allowed to kill someone for trying to steal your car. It has to be proportionate - killing someone for a crime against your property is not 'reasonable force' - it is vigilantism. And the UK police don't like that.

If someone physically attacks you physically, then yes, you have reasonable self defence, and can use force, but you still have to be able to show that this was proportionate.

The UK justice system most certainly does not view the life of someone committing damage/theft to your property as "lower value" - there's this little thing called human rights legislation.

"Reasonable force is the key term here. You're not allowed to kill someone for trying to steal your car. It has to be proportionate - killing someone for a crime against your property is not 'reasonable force' - it is vigilantism. And the UK police don't like that."

And nor should you be. You are allowed to use force on someone to stop them stealing your property though. If they resist then you are justified to use an even greater amount of force to stop them. And if they resist to the point where the only two options available are kill them to stop them stealing your property, or let them escape with your property, you have a defence in law for killing them.

And killing someone in self defence or defence of property does not conflict with human rights legislation.

I don't think you can, you know.

Householders cannot use the defence if they are only trying to protect their property, rather than trying to defend themselves or their family.

That's guidance issued to judges. Which means that it will just get taken into consideration along with anything else. If you've killed someone attacking you the court will almost certainly accept that you were quite scared, they may question whether you had the same level of fear when it was apparent the person was only stealing your stuff rather than attacking you, but if you kill the thief using reasonable force you do have a very clear defence under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.""

"The definition of a 'householder case'

The heightened protection described above is only available in 'householder cases'. Subsection (8A) of section 76 of the 2008 Act explains the meaning of a 'householder case'.

Householders are only permitted to rely on the heightened defence for householders if:

1. The are using force to defend themselves or others (See(8A)(a)). They cannot seek to rely on the defence if they were acting for another purpose, such as protecting their property, although the law on the use of reasonable force will continue to apply in these circumstances."

Last sentence being the most important.

If you've killed someone for attacking you, then you claim self defence. You were saying you would kill someone for stealing your property.

Anyway, the new law only applies to house invasions, if they're in your house, and you and your family feel threatened. That is quite right imo. But if they're taking your car, and you go out and interfere instead of dialling 999, you might have a hard time explaining that to a judge.

But you'd seriously shoot someone for nicking your car? That blows my mind, tbh.

BTW, upthread you asked: Do we tell the police to just leave thieves take what they like and not escalate things by confronting them?

No, because they are the Police it's kind of their job to deal with criminals. However, the police and the law in this country do not encourage vigilantism. It's not 'being a perpetual victim' to avoid dangerous situations with criminals dial 999 or claim the insurance for the loss - the alternative is waving your gun about and being at serious risk of coming to harm yourself.

To get back to the topic of gun ownership, stats show that gun ownership is extremely bad for your health. Keeping one in your house, even locked up, means you are significantly more likely to die in a gun-related incident - accident, murder or suicide - than non-gun owners in the US.

There are significantly higher number of domestic altercations in the home leading to death by accidental or deliberate use of a gun against a loved one, than there are deaths from home invasions by strangers.

*in the US.

"That is quite right imo. But if they're taking your car, and you go out and interfere instead of dialling 999, you might have a hard time explaining that to a judge."

Why would you have a hard time explaining that? You went out to try and stop someone nicking your car, he resisted and escalated things so you were forced to kill him in self defence.

"But you'd seriously shoot someone for nicking your car? That blows my mind, tbh."

No. I would be willing to do it they left me no other choice, but I'd try and avoid killing them if possible.

"No, because they are the Police confused it's kind of their job to deal with criminals."

It's highly unlikely that there will be a police officer available instantly when you need them, meaning you have little choice.

I don't think those stats are correct. I think people should be able to chose whether they want to have one. If you feel safer without a gun, it's not my business to tell you otherwise, you can just go about life without owning a gun if you feel that makes you safer.

So you place a higher value on your car, than a human life. You would actually kill someone taking your car - but claim that you had no other choice. But you did have another choice. You didn't have to act the vigilante.

There is a difference between acting in self defence/defending property and acting a vigilante. As said I would never kill someone as a punishment, that's vigilantism and murder. But in self defence? Yes I'd be willing to. Yes I place a higher value on my property than the life of someone trying to take it. They are still human, whatever I may think of them, so I'd try not to, but if it's a choice between killing them or losing my property, my property has a higher value than their life I'm afraid.